DEVELOPING REALISTIC LEARNING OUTCOMES

Trevor Hussey & Patrick Smith

MALCOLM & ZUKAS (2001: 35)

"...the language of objectives, outcomes, competences and

empowerment of the learner has 'seduced' both policy makers and

practitioners in many areas of education."

EISNER (2000: 344)

 "The vision of a uniformed army of young adolescents all marching to the same

drummer, towards the same objective, may be one that gladdens the hearts of

technocrats, but it is a vision that has little or nothing to do with those delicious

outcomes that constitute the surprises of educational experience."

THE STORY SO FAR…

Concern for realistic learning outcomes Dangers of disaggregation of curriculum This critique should be understood as…

THE TROUBLE WITH LEARNING OUTCOMES

Often not referred to Spurious clarity, explicitness &

objectivity Insensitive to different disciplines Restrictive – thresholds & emergent

outcomes

INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES (ILOs)

ILOs are formulated and directed by the teacher or others and refer to what students should be able to

demonstrate in terms of knowledge, skills and/or attitudes as a result of a

learning episode.

EMERGENT LEARNING OUTCOMES (ELOs)

ELOs emerge from what happens in classrooms between learners,

teachers and the curriculum. They cannot be pre-specified, though

some are more likely than others and some may be more desireable than

others.

THE ARTICULATED CURRICULUM

Intentions

JudgementsContent

Methods

CONTEXT

ILOs & ELOs

ILOs

ELOs

Contingent

Related

Incidental

PREDICTED/UNPREDICTED, DESIRED/UNDESIRED

Predicted

Unpredicted

Desired UndesiredA

B

C

D

TOWARDS MORE REALISTIC LEARNING OUTCOMES

More generous LOs Learners’ as well as teachers’ LOs Changing curricular arrangements Some outcomes cannot be measured

STUDENTS IN TRANSITION

“A significant change in a student’s life, self-concept and learning; a shift from one state

of understanding, development and maturity to

another.”

TRANSITIONS & THE UNDERGRADUATE CAREER

Pre-entry & Induction

Year One Year Two Year Three Post Graduation

DEPENDENCE

INTERDEPENDENCE

AUTONOMY

ORGANISING QUESTIONS How far will students’ needs,

responses & agendas be taken into account?

What balance is appropriate between instructional and expressive outcomes?

How will emergent learning outcomes be treated?

CONCLUSIONS ILOs represent approximate

intentions Engaged & motivated students

generate ELO’s Developing autonomous students

means negotiation of outcomes Others are exploring alternatives –

UCLan’s ‘personalised learning outcomes’

SOURCES & REFERENCESBruner J (1960). The process of education. Cambridge.

Harvard University Press.Eisner E (1975). Instructional and expressive objectives.

In Golby et al (1975) Curriculum Design. London. Croom Helm & Open University.

Eisner E (2000). Those who ignore the past… Journal of Curriculum Studies 32 (2) 343 – 357.

Gentle P (2001). Course cultures and learning organisations. Active Learning in Higher Education, 2 (1). 8 – 30.

SOURCES & REFERENCESJackson N, Wisdom J & Shaw M (2003). Guide to busy

academics: using learning outcomes to design courses and assess learning. York. LTSN Generic Centre.

Lampert M (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Harvard Educational Review 55 (2) 178-194.

Lewis & Tsuchida (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: how research lessons improve Japanese education. American Educator. Winter. 12 -17 & 50 – 52.

Malcolm J & Zukas M (2001). Bridging pedagogic gaps. Teaching in Higher Education, 6 (1). 33 – 42.

SOURCES & REFERENCESMcAlpine et al (1999). Building a metacognitive model

of reflection. Higher Education 37. 105-131.MacLellan E (2004). How convincing is alternative

assessment? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29 (3). 311 – 321.

Shavelson & Stern (1981). Research on teacher's thoughts, judgements, decisions and behaviours. Review of Educational Research, 51 (4).

CONTACT DETAILS

Professor Trevor HusseyEmail: Trevor.Hussey@bcuc.ac.uk

Professor Patrick SmithEmail: Patrick.Smith@bcuc.ac.uk